http://www.fenderforum.com/forum.html?db=&topic_number=564255&lastpost=2006-05-1201:18:50

You guys have to check this out. It is reasons like this why Bill might have been banned from the FDP.

Dumbass from the Fender Forum
Sorry! I didn't want to be arrogant.
The common Jaguar/JM design was meant for heavier strings (10's - 13's), but they dont heal the fault of the bridge tailpiece construction.
Both, bridge & tailpiece, absorp thanks to their loose construction (in contrary to the string thru body of a Tele or the sustainblock fixed with heavy springs of a Strat) the vibration of the strings. Lack of sustain and a sharp banjo tone is the result.
The buzzstop is the right solution, and it even gets better when wrapping the strings around its roller bar.
Even played without amp you can feel the vibration of the body underneath the buzzstop. The energy of the strings is not absorped anymore!
IMHO the common construction is only well for slide, but if somebody prefers it over any modification, I dont have any problems not to mention to start a holy war. This would be really silly!

This reminds me of a joke post on the Gretsch Pages, or maybe it was Harmony Central (I have to assume it was a joke post, but read on)....

The poster in question inherits/acquires/somehow gets his hands on a vintage 50's White Falcon, but it doesn't suit his tastes. He wants a guitar that sounds more like, hell, who knows what he wanted it to sound like...He ripped out the stock DeArmonds, "threw away" the Cadillac tailpiece, routed the body for full-sized humbuckers, where he threw in some Dimarzio Super Distortion pups, sanded off the "cheezy white finish" and may have even Krylon'ed the guitar flat black....

I have to take these idiots with a grain of salt. Keeps me sane.

The Disasternauts

Glad I can't post there anymore.

"as he stepped into the stealthy night air... little did he know the fire escape was not there"

https://www.facebook.com/reluctantaquanauts/
https://www.facebook.com/TheDragstripVipers/

I don't get it. I can't imagine the wrapping not making vibrato work worse, but besides that I don't see why it's such an absurd idea. Also don't understand the booting at all (must be a real fascist forum huh?).

<img src="klzzwxh:0000"></img>

Wraydar
I don't get it. I can't imagine the wrapping not making vibrato work worse, but besides that I don't see why it's such an absurd idea. Also don't understand the booting at all (must be a real fascist forum huh?).

It is an absurd idea because there is absolutely no reason why a Jaguar or Jazzmaster should need a buzzstop, ever for any reason.

Brian

JakeDobner
It is an absurd idea because there is absolutely no reason why a Jaguar or Jazzmaster should need a buzzstop, ever for any reason.

Maybe you should ask Wronski then. He's got them on his reissue Jags, but not his vintage ones.

I'll taunt him and then we will have a guitar-off and he will kick my ass and make me cry.

Oh, to be Dave Wronski, so talented and knowledgable.

BillAqua
I was banned from the FDP a few years ago, I had referenced to an ebay ad I had at the time in a post and the kommandant pulled the plug on my account.
......

Fixed.

unlunf

MY RIGHT HAND IS FASTER THAN YOURS!
(copyright 2003, Bruce Welch)

bigtikidude
...I'm thinking about the possibility of running the strings thru the body of the bass I'm gonna buy.

is that somethng new, or did 50's or 60's basses have that?

I'm pretty sure the 71 I'm gonna buy doesn't do that.
But I like the tone of a bass with the strings run thru the body from the back.

Jeff(btd)
p.s. I had a buzz on my Bass, and I stuck a piece of folded paper under the string between the bridge, so you could say that was a buzz stop.

Jeff:

The first Precision basses from the 1950s had the "string-through-the-body" configuration...from 1951 through 1957 (I think). When the P-bass headstock changed from the "Telecaster" shape to the "Stratocaster" shape, the bridge also changed to "top-loading" through the bridge plate. The "through-the-body" string configuration returned briefly in the 1970s with the "Telecaster Bass". All the rest of the post-1957-style Fender basses have top-loading bridges.

The MIJ early-50s re-issues have the "through-the-body" string ferrules and old-style two-saddle bridges...that's what's on the MIJ RI '51 P-bass I play. I don't care much for the two-saddle bridge (intonation is tricky to set up properly) but, I recently purcased a replacement four-saddle through-the-body 1950s-style Precision bridge that should solve that problem nicely.

I absolutely LOVE the sustain and tone of the through-the-body design, and even with the somewhat squirelly stock two-pice bridge, the '51 P-bass is my ultimate bass-of-choice precisely because of the string-through-body design.

If you choose to modify your bass to string-through-body, be sure you locate a proper through-the-body bridge and string ferrules before you start drilling holes. A standard top-loaded bass bridge simply won't work right for a through-the-body application. Also, be sure to check the string spacing on the new through-the-body bridge to make sure it fits your bass properly.

I heard a rumour over at the Leo Quan website that they might be releasing a "string-through-the-body" style BADASS bass bridge pretty soon...now that would totally kick ass! Currently, Quan only offers the standard "top loading" P-bass and J-bass bridges.

-dp

ps: i dig the "bass buzz stop" invention you described!